Although the earliest reported sightings of the chupacabra were in the 1990s, the legendary creature has become deeply entrenched in the public consciousness. Those who believe that chupacabra exists insist on its reality in spite of there being no photographical or scientific evidence that it is an actual species (Radford, 2012). Yet “flesh and blood chupacabras have allegedly been found as recently as June” of 2017, making the “monsters eminently more accessible for study than, say, the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot,” other stalwarts of the cryptozoology community (Than, 2010). The term chpacabra, or chupacabras as they are often called, means goat sucker, referring to the reports of the creature killing goats and drinking their blood. Therefore, the chupacabras has some symbolic link to the vampire as well as to its cryptozoological compatriots like bigfoot. As interesting as the chupacabra itself might be, equally as fascinating are the sociological and psychological effects of the reports. Since 1995, more than 200 reports of chupacabra have surfaced, all from North America and most from Puerto Rico (Than, 2010). These reports have led to deleterious effects in the affected communities, including widespread panic and wanton killing of wildlife. The chupacabras has been spotted mainly in the United States, Mexico, and Puerto Rico, where the legend was originally born. As Moye (2014) points out, several residents of a small town in Texas have not just reported seeing the chupacabras but also claim to have preserved chupacabras corpses. The scientific explanation most typically given for the chupacabras is not that it does not exist at all, but rather, that it is simply a wild animal mistaken for the mythical creature. The most common explanation is that the chupacabra is a coyote with mange, which often appear “quite debilitated,” and which may prey on easy targets like livestock (Than, 2010). Moye (2014) also states that some believe the chupacabra to be a type of raccoon. DNA analyses on a suspected corpse have revealed that in at least one case, the suspected chupacabras was nothing more than a “hybrid of a coyote on the maternal side and a Mexican wolf on the paternal side,” (Moye, 2014). Nevertheless, not all sightings of chupacabras is canine in appearance. Almost all the earliest sightings until 2000 were decidedly un-canine, described as “a bipedal creature that was three feet tall and covered in short gray hair, with spikes out of its back,”...

The stories and the folklore surrounding the chupacabras have dramatically changed over the years, perhaps accounting in part for the shift in its appearance from an odd bipedal creature with spikes towards one more canine in appearance and behavior. Derby (2008) describes the extent of the original reports of chupacabras, noting that in 1994, residents of Canóvanas, Puerto Rico had reported dozens of wildlife fatalities not limited to goats. Following the Puerto Rican reports, over 2000 more farm animals were reported dead via a “grotesque creature about three feet tall, with membraned wings, a hunched back, large eyes, covered with either scales or quills,” (Derby, 2008, p. 290-291). Some reports also offer the chupacabra the additional sinister feature of “glowing red eyes,” (“Chupacabra,” 2001). Given its fearsome appearance and the trail of destruction left in its wake, it was no wonder that the communities that had been affected started to panic. Whenever and wherever chupacrabas had been spotted, residents of the community would go so far as to completely board up their residences, take up arms, and hire guards to protect their loved ones (Derby, 2008). In fact, some ranchers even started to sell off their herds to minimize their financial losses in anticipation of both drought and further chupacabras attacks (Derby, 2008). In California, a wave of chupacabras sightings led to livestock owners and ranchers to declare “open season” on protected wildlife including mountain lions, leading to mandatory police controls of affected areas (“Chupacabras,” n.d.).
The panic surrounding cupacabras had become so widespread and potentially devastating to local communities that the governments of Mexico, Puerto Rico, and even the United States were forced to step in. As Derby (2008) points out, international press conferences ensued, including reports from “prominent biologists” who offered their theories about what the chupacabra could have been, plus another autopsy of a corpse conducted in Miami, which yielded results of the creature was either a “puma or a dog,” (p. 291). Likewise, in 2007, biologists in Texas analyzed the DNA of a chupacabras and found it to be nothing more than a coyote (“Chupacabra,” n.d.). The…